So you have no interest in viewing all available evidence... It's not surprising. I don't care how much footage there is, it is footage of the people's house and it should all be made available to the public.
What “evidence” you are not even giving me what your suspicions are. If it is that important to get it out there why isn’t Tucker sharing it? Come to that why have we not heard more from old Tuckums? Did he not promise to find your evidence for you?
I've already told you what potential evidence there could be to look for and instead of addressing that possibility you choose to use patronizing little childish terms. So run along now I have better things to do
I find it pointless to debate a straw man argument. Those that present one are better at arguing with themselves, and are free to use as many words as they like to dress it up.
You have not even explained what makes my argument a straw man, other than your making some enigmatic reference to Vietnam, to which I responded. In fact, I think it is my explaining simple errors in your own arguments, which you are calling my supposed "straw man."
Here is your first strawman argument. "The fact that government has ever misled the public (knowingly or not), is not a logical argument, that all members of government are always lying. I don't think further explanation, on my part, is necessary to debunk that argument." The reason it's easy to debunk it is because I never made that argument. Upon seeing it I decided the rest of your argument was equally pointless to respond to. The point of bringing up the Vietnam history was to illustrate that certain (not all) government officials have lied to us, in the past, without any remorse about the consequences of their lies. The conclusion from that argument isn't that ALL government officials lie to us, but that we should be mindful that some might and therefore absolute trust is a foolish trust.
Wow! That took some digging! Again has there been any corroborating witness accounts of “ agents provocateurs”. I mean surely the ones on trial would have been shouting “the guy in the ski mask spurred me on!”
If this were true, the footage would be classified, and for a good reason. It is not classified, therefore we have a right to see every damn second, even the boring ones. Personally, I'm not going to spend any time viewing any of it because I don't care. Some people did some bad things that day, but I think what they did has been totally blown out of proportion, at least in the public square. But the fact that as far as my google skills worked (and now it seems down, though to what extent I can't say, only that my internet is working but google is not) have identified less than 10 persons charged with anything more than a misdemeanor tells me it wasn't that significant from a legal perspective. Also, the ex-military man buried deep inside of me realizes that even if they had succeeded in taking control of the Capital building, that would be nothing more than a symbolic win or defeat, depending on your point of view. Few if any were armed (the most I am aware of is the guy with a flagpole, of which I have two within 10' of me right now, no, it's three now that I remember the one outside), they had no supplies to speak of, Congress could have conducted business anywhere (there is no Constitutional requirement that their official business has to be conducted in the building built for them), and they had no plans beyond, "Let's breach this entrance". What then? From a strategic and tactical standpoint, absolutely nothing. Even if it was in someone's fantasy, that was no way to start anothe Revolution or Civil War.
As citizens, we are the government, and we own the government, and everything it creates. That is why, for example, images made by NASA, be it a photograph taken by an astronaut onboard the ISS, any and all images taken by the Hubble or JWT, all of it belongs to we the people, and we the people have a right to obtain it, view it, and even sell it if we want and can find buyers. Perhaps we take stunning Hubble pictures and make beautiful prints in high quality frames and sell those. Every unclassified document, email, fax, note, phone call, and so forth belongs to US, and since we are the owners, we can do with all of it as we please.
Now that you mention it, yes. If the prosecution objects to some piece of footage that is even hypothetically possibly maybe in someone's dreamlike fantasy relevant, the Judge can view the disputed footage in his or her official capacity, and decide if there is good reason to withhold it, and if there is not, then yes... a defendant would have a right to access every second of every angle. Things may work differently down under, but here we bend over backwards to give the defense the benefit of every possible and many impossible doubts, based on the legal theory that it's better 10 guilty persons go free than a single innocent has their freedom stripped from them under false pretenses. Even if those pretenses are in good faith. A defense lawyer is not only allowed to defend a person they know to be guilty, they are required to give the most zealous defense they can within the limits of their skills. Whereas, even though a clever prosecutor may be able to secure a W on the scoreboard, they cannot even attempt to prosecute someone they know or believe is innocent.
If you forget, you had used your Vietnam example to show that the argument I was making, was a straw man. However, unless you were claiming that we can't ever trust anything that anyone in government tells us, your Vietnam example does not debunk my argument, because it never did rely on "absolute trust," in government; it was, and I always am, mindful of this potential for dishonesty (which you do not always seem mindful of, when it comes to competing, Republican claims). So my assuming that this was what you had been implying, was only due to 1) the common sense necessity, that you must be making that argument, if you'd thought it dismissed my entire argument or, as you'd claimed, showed it to be a straw man; and 2) your putting such a premium upon your economy of words, that you did not really explain your claim. As I have pointed out, saving a few words, while leaving obscurity in your meaning, is a false "efficiency." If you didn't get to the end of my post, I listed all the evidence, we had to go on, other than, the word of the Committee members: the live broadcast of the attack, on January 6th; hours worth of violence, on video; emails and tons of records; and testimony of many, many members of the Trump Administration, who were the ones who'd painted the picture, which the J6 Committee only summarized.
J6C spent some $20M producing their presentation of the event. Making all the video available to download online would be a lot cheaper than that. And no, I wont watch it all. No one will watch it all. But giving everyone access will result in all of it being seen by somewhere between thousands and millions of internet sleuths filtering out relevent footage and posting it to their various outlets, each according to their own various agendas and biases, and in the aggregate, it will all get out. This would effectively be a democratic crowdsourcing of the information. I'd rather get it from many (all) perspectives than just the J6C or just the J6C and Tucker Carlson.
You're doubling down. My argument was clear enough and yet you still don't understand it. That's typically the springboard for when a strawman argument is made. Instead of assuming what one's argument is, use more of your common sense to ask questions regarding it. The evidence from the kangaroo court was professionally produced to present a definite narrative -- that DJT is responsible for 1/6. That it was an insurrection (which by tying him to it would prevent him from ever holding the office of the POTUS). This fact is known and can be researched with a simple Google search. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/lights-cameras-action-january-6th-committee-hires-professional-tv-producer-for-televised-hearings/#:~:text=Democrats are deeply invested in the January 6th,season, like the finale of a popular series. What messaging was Goldston "craft(ing)"? The predetermined conclusion of the Committee. This knowledge should at least raise an eyebrow about the honesty of the Committee. I've certainly seen suspicion raised about Tucker editing, the videos in his possession, to present his own version of what took place on 1/6. The logic behind that argument? That Tucker is a known liar; it was admitted even in court. Did you, personally, make that argument? Idk, but I raise it only to illustrate how our biases can influence our conclusions -- and that works equally for both sides. Did the 1/6 Committee lie to us? Idk, but I definitely know they didn't present all the evidence to provide a balanced view. How do I know that? Because Tucker was given video from the SOH that was never shown at the hearings. Only someone deeply biased would not want to consider what it shows.
The crimes were backed by evidence, and other "evidence" of the criminals doing nothing at a different time does not wash away those crimes. Even Ted Bundy wasn't killing people 100% of the time, but he was judged based on the times when he did.
'The criminals' is not a productive subject of discussion. Crimes are committed by individuals. What evidence is there that Jacob Chansley or w/e, Buffalo Man, for example 'violently entered' the capitol? Some people did that. Now we have footage that he personally was allowed in and escorted around by law enforcment. Footage that was not admitted to be seen by the jury at his trial... We don't have any footage of him personally committing any violence, neither against people nor against property.
I'm all with you on that, in principle. In practice, though, I don't know if you have the expertise to make the assertions that you do, about the feasibility of having all this information: 1) available on a high traffic, government website-- remember the problems with Obamacare, even after preparing it for a year, for the expected rush of applicants? 2) At the cost, you would anticipate. Though we, of course, know from You Tube, that it is possible to create a platform that could deal with that large a store of information, and that great a user demand, I don't know how reasonable is your expectation that not only creating, but maintaining such a site, would "be a lot cheaper" than $20 million. In fact, from my vague recollection, of the price tag for the Obamacare site, I am pretty sure that you are wrong about that. I'm not saying that I object to us spending a $100 million, even though I see no need for it-- I'm only correcting what I see as your unrealistic expectations, as far as cost. How long were you thinking the site would stay in operation-- indefinitely? For $20 million? That does not sound likely, to me.
It seems that some people are basing their opinions on the principle of "guilty by association". Even if you didn't commit any violent crimes on 1/6 in the Capitol, you're guilty by the association with those that did.
He was not charged for being violent, so that claim is 100% irrelevant. Should the cops who walked with him be fired? Yes. Probably, but it does nothing to wash away the crimes which he committed,
Entrapment by estoppel is a legal defense where if a federal official leads you to believe that your actions are not criminal you cannot be convicted. If Capitol Police allowed him inside and then walked around with him he could come up with the defense that he was led to believe he wasn't breaking the law based on their actions. Whether or not that defense would work on a jury is debatable, but the video is needed evidence for such a claim. That video should have been released to the defense. We do not live in a third-world fascist dictatorship where the government hides evidence from the people they disagree with politically while prosecuting them for protesting the government.
That's a bit extreme and perhaps overreacting. LEO are trained to diffuse a situation, if possible. They may have been doing that in Chensley case. Chensley took a plea deal. It's not uncommon to plead guilty to a charge a person is not guilty of to avoid a charge that could present greater jail time. Especially if your attorney suggests it. The same thing happens with out of court settlements. A person may agree to pay some damages just to avoid paying more to defend themselves against false accusations.
You are being played by Tucker who shows you 4 minutes of the 60 minutes he spent in the Capitol, so you think he is innocent of all the things he did. For example he omits the 30 minutes he spent facing off with U.S. Capitol Police in front of the Senate Chamber doors while the VP was being evacuated from the chamber. He pled guilty to his crime, so I am not sure why you insist he is innocent of all wrongdoing Its possible they were simply walking him out after he agreed to not resist. That was after he has spent an hour in the building already armed with a spear. Everyone who broke in are guilty of obstruction. He is going to be released in a few months no matter what.
But he'll forever be a convicted felon which has life-long consequences. The obstruction charge is overblown. Was there ever a doubt in any Congress member's mind that they would not continue the process they started?
Whether or not they could continue later is irrelevant. They assault was obstruction, and those who took part in it are criminals, and those who were identified and found guilty will be convicted felons. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
A postponement is not obstruction. Otherwise any action, even by members of Congress, which postpones the process could be considered obstruction. Theoretically, a challenge to the EC votes could take days to resolve leading to the SOH becoming acting POTUS. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution-allow-for-a-delayed-presidential-election
